Thanks J0. Although I'm still reserving judgement for the time being on the current Admin, two of my three biggest issues with the last two were how they handled money and war. I think we're pretty much on the same page for war, so an endorsement of my tax ideas from you oddly enough makes you the most viable candidate for my vote in 2020.

My ideas change a bit through input from others, as my process usually is thinking and re-thinking something to death and bouncing them off of others is a great way of doing that. For instance, my insistance on creating a Constitutional Amendment in my ideas for Social Security changes wasn't even considered until Second had mentioned why the lowest earners were chosen to pay for it in the first place was to ensure that the rich and powerful couldn't take it away without a huge fight.

So I'm just going to post that here right now, and maybe a few other things we've discussed before, and if people have any constructive criticisms of parts of them they can be modified.

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX PLAN:

1. Eliminate the 7.65% Social Security/Medicaid tax on employees (15.3% for self-employed) for the first $100,000 of income and force ALL companies to give the matching half they were paying to the employees. This would be an instant 15.30% pay increase to every single one of the working class that are in poverty all the way up to those making $100,000 per year.

Currently, anybody making up to $127,200 has to pay this on every penny of income. So without doing the actual math, I believe that anybody making up to around $225,000 in a single year would actually see some benefit to this, although those making over $100,000 would see gradual decreases up until the limit.

Make this $100,000 number tied completely to inflation, so it never decreases in real life.

2. Remove the cap completely on income. Everyone making over $100,000 per year will have to pay it on every dime they make over $100,000.

3. Most importantly, make this a constitutional amendment that no person in political power can EVER change this or remove it. A majority of the wealth in this country, as we know, is in the hands of very few relatively speaking. As Second had mentioned when I initially brought this up, it wouldn't be long until the lobbyists for rich people would be fighting these new taxes and calling for the destruction of social security. As the abolition of alcohol and the repealing of that amendment has proven, this isn't a bulletproof measure, but it would make it very hard to ever change and it would have the attention of all of the people if some were to try to make another amendment removing it.

4. Not exactly part of the tax plan, but immediately tie minimum wage to inflation from here forward. The last minimum wage increase was in 2009 to $7.25. 9 years ago. 21 years ago when I was a kid at Toys R Us, it was boosted to $5.25. Back then, kids worked retail jobs and gas was less than a buck a gallon. Now I see almost all adults working them today and the pay is barely any higher than it was in the late 90's.

BENEFITS OF THE PLAN:

Immediate 15.3% pay increase for everyone making less than $100,000 per year, as well as diminishing returns on that number for those making more than $100,000 all the way up to roughly $225,000 per year.

Unlike a LARGE bump in minimum wage that many people are calling for, this increase would not cost most of the companies providing goods and services most people need any more money than they're already paying for a LARGE majority of their employees. This would mean that there should be no reason we start seeing a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread going over $5.00 a few weeks later to pay for these wage increases.

Tying minimum wage to inflation is a measure that should have happened a long time ago. It doesn't only benefit those making minimum wage either. Employers will be forced to raise wages for those with more skills that are currently making more and have more job responsibilities to keep competitive. It would also be a lot easier to absorb into the company's yearly and long term operations because it will just be part of doing business and there won't be any huge shockers like some companies have had to deal with in areas that recently raised the minimum to $15/hr.

OTHER IDEAS:

I don't have time to detail anything out here right now since I have to get ready for work, but we've also discussed things like replacing Property Tax with Mortgage Tax (incentivizing good financial decisions and lowering the burden of retirees), and changes to the Lottery tax system and forcing full transparency on where that money goes as a means to offset any possible deficits to the educational system should people actually start wising up and paying off their house sooner instead of buying a new iPhone every year or a new car every 2 or 3 years.

Remind me if there was anything else I forgot of J0. I'll try to detail those last two out when I get back.

My "weekends" are probably a bit different than yours are. I just got off my first night of work, and they've got me doing my last 40 for a while. I'm working straight through Tuesday night into Wednesday morning. How's Wednesday or Thursday for you?

I don't really mind using my name here either way, but you might want to reconsider it. Doing a Google search on 6ixStringJack, as cool of a name as that was, is going to lead to a lot of embarrassing, drunk idiocy. If it really bothered me all that much, I'd do something about them, but I'm just saying that you might not want to tie your campaign at all to that name. You know how the public can be. :)

Just to be clear, if we are going to be talking to each other in real life, what is your answer to the question I've been asking other people in the other threads? Not that I'd even entertain the notion of personal contact with you if I thought you'd be out to dox me, but I'd like to hear your opinion on it first.

I hav no skejyool. You can find my number on my corporate site and call any time. I only turn my fone off wen I'm watching a movie.

I looked thru your resent posts and the only Q I found more than wuns iz "iz Steve Bannon the good guy now?"

My ansr iz no, he'z still a turd. Just kuz he'z at oddz with the turd he helped put in the Wite House duznt mean he duznt stink now. If he duz the rite thing and volunteerz info to convict Trump, then he wont stink so bad. Hard to gloss over 8 yirz uv working agenst Obama.

I assume you hav a real name. I put 6ixStringJack on the paje az a plase holder. If for sum reazon you dont want your real name on your plan, I can rite wutevr you want exept falsly giving me credit for it.

Also, its not a dun deal yet. Your off to a good start with the SS ideaz, but therez alot left to do. And other contributorz mite kum up with sumthing better or modify yourz to the point that you disown it!

You must have somehow missed all of the drama created by Frem's post, lol. True, you didn't post on it at all to my recollection, but it did span several threads. You should look into it. If nothing else, it's mildly entertaining.

I was asking people if they're for or against threatening somebody else's life or livelihood for any reason whatsoever. Some here on this board find this an acceptable practice as long as the person doing the threatening is doing it to people they don't agree with.

Well let's just say that I'm not comfortable with having any more personal contact with you than we currently have at this point J0.

I'm still willing to work with you on the tax plan, but we'll have to do it on here. If you have any specific questions, or would like me to take the time to write up something more official, just say the word. If you feel you have a lot more to talk about that you'd rather speak it to me, you have a youtube channel. Send me a video that is set to be viewed, but not available to the public.

Altho I chide you for falling for Trump, I've seen hiz campain commercialz and
can see how peepl can get drawn in. He iz a very good exampl AGENST not considering the sorse!

*The Watcher iz a Marvel Comic karakter. He iz a member uv an ancient intergalactic sivilization that withdrew from activ partisipation and strictly limit themselvez to obzerving only. Having any influens at all iz a sin to them.

I will cobble together a jeneral tax plan on the paje frum wut youv ritten ubuv and in the me for prez topic. I may stir in sum stuff from The Skeptics Society and Marilyn Vos Savant forumz that I like, then you and everybody else who wants can offer comments, ideaz, complaints.

I will be riting an update on the TrumPutin paje tonite, so will get bak to the TAX paje during the week.

I still have no regrets about voting for Trump though. I'll say that overall I'm not impressed by his first year in office, but it would take a hell of a lot more for me to ever say I'd rather have Hillary in office.

Let's just say that I happily voted against GWB for his second term. The Democratic Party was a lot different back then. They've got 3 years to fix themselves, or I'm going to be voting for Trump again.

I appreciate your misplaced faith in my abilities, J0, but I do have to admit that this is one case where my lack of education and experience is going to leave me unfit for the job, not to mention that it just isn't how my "process" works.

Thousands of incompetent and corrupt goons have been purposefully convoluting the American tax code from the bottom up for over 200 years now. I don't imagine that even if you had the right guy for the job that a single person with all the right education and experience and completely benevolent intent could come up with a plan to fix everything.

My mind doesn't work that way anyhow. Ideas come to me and often I don't even know where they originated. If they have any weight, then over time I build on them. If they don't, I just abandon them. I rarely go searching for them.

How about this? Send me a PM with a link to another forum or two that you're discussing this with other people, and assuming that they are throwing ideas out there, I might find some that I like and could work with.

I will say that what Second said about me and my ideas about tax reform in another thread today is half right. I AM most certainly am looking at things that benefit me. But that's not a Texas Republican trait, or a Republican trait in general though. That's just a human trait. Looking out for Number 1 is in our genetic code.

The part Second was wrong about is saying that I don't look at the bigger picture with my ideas and how it will effect other things. Once I have an idea in place, part of my process is kind of like playing chess and thinking several moves down the way and what negative things could possibly happen, and then going back and revising something and then re-running the scenario again.

It's kind of like my work on computer related stuff. I tried to be a programmer back in the day. I find that work and learning how to program to be a miserable task. I'm a great beta tester though, and I know enough to fix some things on my own along the way as not to bother the "talent" with menial tasks, and then suggest to those who can do more than I can what fixes need to be implemented and why they would be beneficial for the end users who know or care nothing about what is under the hood and just want a streamlined experience. I like to surround myself with smart and capable people that I can communicate well with, and I feel that I do a great job streamlining processes because I have a great ability to put myself in other peoples shoes and discover flaws that might have otherwise been unseen until after a product was released. That is a skill that I notice most computer programmers do not possess. I'm generalizing, of course, but it's been my experience that the coders themselves are extremely narrow minded or at least their focus is so singular that they often miss many potential future issues because they can't defocus enough to look at the bigger picture.

That's where I come in. That's what I am good at. I work very well in tandem with somebody else when we can compliment each other's skills.

Enough rambling though...

Give me something to build on. I'll kick the tires a bit and come back to you with something.

Quote:Originally posted by JO753:
I may stir in sum stuff from The Skeptics Society and Marilyn Vos Savant forumz that I like, then you and everybody else who wants can offer comments, ideaz, complaints.

I took a cursory look over it but I don't really have a lot of time to look at it over the next couple of days. I will have a few days off then and will give it a lot more attention.

One issue that sticks out for me now is in Section 1, the Employee Tax. Unfortunately, it's not as cut and dry as you make it sound because of how convoluted everything already is today. Allow me to explain.

Let's say you were working full time in 2018 at $12/hr. That comes to $24,960. However, at the end of the year, you would not be paying 10% taxes on $24,960, which would come out to $2,496. You will be getting the standard deduction of $12,000, so you would only be paying 10% on $12,960, or $1,296.... which is 5.19%. In this instance, your tax plan would save them 0.19% taxes.

Now let's say that you, like more than 50% of Americans today, were working part time, using the same wage as the last example. Under ACA an employer cannot give you more than 30 hours per week on average without making you full time with all of the health insurance and other benefits that come with that. Now your absolute maximum pay for the year at $12 per hour goes down from $24,960 to only $18,720.

With the $12,000 deduction, your federal taxes would only be 10% of $6,720, or $672... only 3.5% of your actual pay.

Under your new plan, this would be an increase of 1.5% in federal taxes somebody making those exact wages if they worked 30 hours per week, which would never happen, so it would likely be more around 25-28 hours per week average for the year. And since most part-time employees in the country don't even make $12/hr, they would be hit even harder by your new tax than this example.

What this essentially means is that you now just accidentally proposed increasing federal taxes on tens of millions of the lowest earning Americans. Whoops!

Don't feel bad buddy. I know that is not your intention at all. I'll take a look over everything and give you more feedback later this week. :)

What happens to the guy or gal who just got that promotion that put their income from $49,000 per year to $52,000 per year?

Last year their taxes were $2,450 and their take home pay (not including state and local taxes) was $46,550.

This year their taxes are $5,200 and their take home pay is $46,800.

Now they've accepted a lot more work responsibility for what amounts to about a 1/2 percent pay increase. They would have likely been much better off not accepting the promotion and just taking their yearly pay increase which would have meant both more money in the bank and no new job responsibilities.

I didn't misread it. You didn't write it poorly. (I wrote my explanation poorly, and will revise it within the next few days... in the mean time, maybe this further explanation will make you see what I'm trying to get at).

The company doesn't care who is actually paying the taxes, but only what they're going to pay. Just because you say there is no employee tax doesn't mean it's not true. You said yourself that any employee making under $50,000 will be a 5% tax burden for the employee on that employee's income. That's 5% more than it was paying before your tax plan went into effect. That money has to come from somewhere.

Right now, the employee pays it after they get paid. I laid out how low those taxes actually are currently for the lowest earners, so I won't do it again. But for 10's of millions of Americans now this means that there will be more Federal taxes collected on their labor, regardless of who actually pays it or when it gets paid (before or after the paycheck).

Right now it's on you to explain to me how this isn't a large increase in taxes on the lowest earners because that's exactly how you wrote it.

It is a larger tax on the lowest earners. It actually does make a difference when the employer is paying those higher taxes up front as well because the company will just hire people in at a lesser wage to offset those taxes.

EDIT:

As for my second note, it wouldn't be the employee who would be wise in that situation to pass up the promotion to avoid additional taxes, but it would be the employer who would be looking out for their best interests to keep their employees under specific blocks of pay by any means necessary. Maybe even termination, especially in right to work states.

Somebody dangerously close to $50,000 per year risks suddenly being only a $2,400 tax burden and jumping up to a $5,100 tax burden with no reason other than they're making a few thousand dollars more.

This type of thing could easily lead to companies instituting practices such as wage freezes, passing people up for promotions, termination and the like to avoid or postpone paying much higher taxes. There are a lot of potential problems with this model.

Glad we're on the same page now. It was my fault you didn't see what I was talking about before. I got my wires crossed because I was trying to do it too quickly. I've always been a bit of a schemer myself, so I might know better how the minds of these people work. I think a lot of the stuff like that is going to seem completely obvious after I say it, but if you're not wired that way you might not have thought about it beforehand.

This is good though. Don't change anything on your page just yet. I still haven't even had time to really go through it much at all. This is how my process works, like I was saying before. You've got it laid out and now we've got something to build on.

I realize that while you were writing that up you were probably not thinking about each thing entirely separately either, and then I just focused on one single thing. This is also good. It's good to come back at this thing from different angles, that way we can see flaws in it that we didn't see from a different perspective. This thing isn't going to work itself out overnight, but now we can kick the tires around and see how we can improve it.

Quote:A solution to the motivation to avoid crossing into the next tax braket woud be to hav a bunch uv tiny brakets or a continuously increasing tax.

Another woud be a single rate for everybody.

I dont like either. The 1st addz complexity and confusion. The 2nd screwz the poor and middle class and duz nothing to help level the playing field.

Either of them could be a possibility if certain other changes were made that truly balance everything out. We haven't even broached the issue of EIC and other stuff, let alone figured out how all of your other points and things we haven't even thought of would fit into this. The tax code is insanely complex. Which begs the issue, would you propose throwing out everything that wasn't encompassed in your plan when it's finished, or would a lot of that complexity still surround this? I'm not asking you to answer that now... just saying it's something we need to think about while doing all of this.

Quote:Keep in mind that no matter wut the system iz, crooks and clever idiots will find a way to game it. Complexity iz their frend.

Ain't that the truth, buddy?

I used to live in Illionis. I think I had told you all about my process "fighting" my property taxes in Indiana. But "fighting" isn't the right word for it though. It was a hassle, for sure, but nobody ever fought me on anything. Actually, when it was finally said and done the guy that heads the Assessor's office was praising me for all the due diligence and even I was surprised when he came back about 20 minutes later and told me my taxes had been cut in half. He said I made his job easy. He was right. That was about 200 phone calls back and forth to various institutions, even including getting some documentation on a flood almost 10 years ago from FEMA. 20 minutes of work for him, about 2 months of work for me. As difficult as all of that was, it would never have been possible without paying a lawyer big bucks in Illinois. Purposefully convoluting everything is their specialty.

We'll figure out something good. Don't sweat the tax page until I come back with some more ideas. You've got plenty of other things to do and we've still got over 2 years to do it :)

I'm really looking forward to it. I actually love learning stuff about taxes, but I only ever do it when I'm learning for myself or a few of my family members. This gives me a reason to branch out.

All the polisy related pajez on my site are intended to be just a jeneral outline. Obviously any spesific lejislation woud be much more detailed. Dont want to obfuscate the messaj with too much detail.

Yes, the tax plan iz a replasement for the existing mess. But if therez sumthing worthwile in the old system I'm not agenst salvajing it.

All the polisy related pajez on my site are intended to be just a jeneral outline. Obviously any spesific lejislation woud be much more detailed. Dont want to obfuscate the messaj with too much detail.

Yes, the tax plan iz a replasement for the existing mess. But if therez sumthing worthwile in the old system I'm not agenst salvajing it.

I never officially left. If you haven't noticed by now, putting obligations on myself is something I typically avoid. This happens to be something I'm really interested in though, and I enjoy collaborations with people who are like minded on whatever the subject.

No point in putting all the details on a page that nobody is going to read. Short and sweet is best, but the plan still needs to be there underneath. There's no way around it though, it's going to be more complex than you're comfortable with. There are just too many people and too many situations. The simpler you make it, the more unfair it will be to somebody. Sure, it sounds nice to just say "well, screw the rich", but if you go full bore that way you'll never stand a chance of getting elected, unfortunately.

Regarding your message to Signy, did you change the page? I hadn't had a chance to read it all. I asked you didn't make any changes yet until I could do so. Do you have a revisions page, or just an ideas page where you could put them back up behind the scenes?

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I took a cursory look over it but I don't really have a lot of time to look at it over the next couple of days. I will have a few days off then and will give it a lot more attention.

One issue that sticks out for me now is in Section 1, the Employee Tax. Unfortunately, it's not as cut and dry as you make it sound because of how convoluted everything already is today. Allow me to explain.

Let's say you were working full time in 2018 at $12/hr. That comes to $24,960. However, at the end of the year, you would not be paying 10% taxes on $24,960, which would come out to $2,496. You will be getting the standard deduction of $12,000, so you would only be paying 10% on $12,960, or $1,296...

minor point of Math. After 12,000 deduction, 10% Tax Rate is on the next $9,525, then 12% . So the Tax on 24,960 would be $1,375.50

Quote: which is 5.19%. In this instance, your tax plan would save them 0.19% taxes.

Now let's say that you, like more than 50% of Americans today, were working part time, using the same wage as the last example. Under ACA an employer cannot give you more than 30 hours per week on average without making you full time with all of the health insurance and other benefits that come with that. Now your absolute maximum pay for the year at $12 per hour goes down from $24,960 to only $18,720.

With the $12,000 deduction, your federal taxes would only be 10% of $6,720, or $672... only 3.5% of your actual pay.

Under your new plan, this would be an increase of 1.5% in federal taxes somebody making those exact wages if they worked 30 hours per week, which would never happen, so it would likely be more around 25-28 hours per week average for the year. And since most part-time employees in the country don't even make $12/hr, they would be hit even harder by your new tax than this example.

What this essentially means is that you now just accidentally proposed increasing federal taxes on tens of millions of the lowest earning Americans. Whoops!

Don't feel bad buddy. I know that is not your intention at all. I'll take a look over everything and give you more feedback later this week. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

So you guys are increasing the Tax Rate on the lowest earners? Definitely Democrats, you 2. And as I already pointed out, JO does not understand the concept of progressive Taxation.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Upon re-reading the same part there is another huge problem with it.

What happens to the guy or gal who just got that promotion that put their income from $49,000 per year to $52,000 per year?

Last year their taxes were $2,450 and their take home pay (not including state and local taxes) was $46,550.

Math. In 2017 Tax for 49K was 5,393. Take home of $43,607. If 52K was in 2017, Tax was 6,143 - a 3,000 raise with 750 Tax hike, or 25%. Not sure if that's what you meant.

Quote:This year their taxes are $5,200 and their take home pay is $46,800.

math. 52K in 2018 would be $4,789 Tax. First 12K exempt, 12,001 - 21,525 @ 10% (952.5), plus 21,526 - 50,200 @ 12% (3,441), plus 50,201 - 52K @ 22% (396). Less Tax than at the lower pay level in 2017. Take home of 47,211. Still not sure if that's what you meant.

Quote:Now they've accepted a lot more work responsibility for what amounts to about a 1/2 percent pay increase. They would have likely been much better off not accepting the promotion and just taking their yearly pay increase which would have meant both more money in the bank and no new job responsibilities.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I didn't misread it. You didn't write it poorly. (I wrote my explanation poorly, and will revise it within the next few days... in the mean time, maybe this further explanation will make you see what I'm trying to get at).

The company doesn't care who is actually paying the taxes, but only what they're going to pay. Just because you say there is no employee tax doesn't mean it's not true. You said yourself that any employee making under $50,000 will be a 5% tax burden for the employee on that employee's income. That's 5% more than it was paying before your tax plan went into effect. That money has to come from somewhere.

Right now, the employee pays it after they get paid.

Actually, the employee pays it as "Federal Income Tax" but also the employer pays a matching amount of "payroll taxes" before the employee even sees it.

Quote: I laid out how low those taxes actually are currently for the lowest earners, so I won't do it again. But for 10's of millions of Americans now this means that there will be more Federal taxes collected on their labor, regardless of who actually pays it or when it gets paid (before or after the paycheck).

Right now it's on you to explain to me how this isn't a large increase in taxes on the lowest earners because that's exactly how you wrote it.

It is a larger tax on the lowest earners. It actually does make a difference when the employer is paying those higher taxes up front as well because the company will just hire people in at a lesser wage to offset those taxes.

EDIT:

As for my second note, it wouldn't be the employee who would be wise in that situation to pass up the promotion to avoid additional taxes, but it would be the employer who would be looking out for their best interests to keep their employees under specific blocks of pay by any means necessary. Maybe even termination, especially in right to work states.

Somebody dangerously close to $50,000 per year risks suddenly being only a $2,400 tax burden and jumping up to a $5,100 tax burden with no reason other than they're making a few thousand dollars more.

This type of thing could easily lead to companies instituting practices such as wage freezes, passing people up for promotions, termination and the like to avoid or postpone paying much higher taxes. There are a lot of potential problems with this model.

I didnt rite your social security plan exactly like you rote, 6ix, but I think its better. Redusez the burden for most employeez and their employerz.

I took a look at this.
Everything before "taxes" was BS. Whole paragraphs of nonsense.
You claim to have 4 groups of Tax rates. This will be confusing to most people because you did not explain the major overhaul that your examples reveal.
For the 62K that your example 1 has, you Tax 10% of every single dollar, instead of 10% of only the dollars between 50K and 62K - as the current system of brackets does.
So $50,000 would have $2,500 Tax, and $50,001 would have $5,000 Tax.
And $150,000 would have $15,000 Tax, and $150,001 would have $45,000 Tax.
Then $1,000,000 would have $300,000 Tax, and $1,000,001 would have $500,000 tax.
What are the benefits of any of that? Other than reduce inflation By eliminating pay raises.
Your example 2 seems to be contradictory, you should mention to look in the next section, Self Employed.
Your section 3 example with Chrysler indicates that instead of paying $200,000 Tax on $1,000,000 (net $800,000), they will now pay $160,000 on $800,000 (net $640,000). No need ever again for the Government to obtain a new vehicle - what company would ever want to get screwed by the Government even more than usual?
The entirety of your section 3 is reverting to prior law. But that Taxation practice was changed to the current practice for a reason, seems dumb of you to want to change it back.
And your whole premise seems incomplete so far. Currently about 40% of an employee's stated "earnings" can be evaporated before the paycheck is even issued. But before that, another 40% is already paid by the employer before the "earnings" are even proclaimed on the payroll stub. This means that, of the full amount the employer must expend upon the employee, 6 parts of 14 are what the employee takes home, but 4 parts are hidden, and the employee has no ability to affect them. Your indicated solution is to hide even more of his costs from the employee. The reverse would be more beneficial to revealing to the employee just how much Tax burden they are laden with, instead of hiding it.
The current Taxation allows employees to reduce their tax burden by contributing to a tax-deferred retirement account, which is the benefit of everybody. This only works when the Tax is visible to the employee, and not hidden behind the curtain of "payroll" Fake Wage rates.

For your section 4, what are your examples of tangible products compared to your car manufacturers?

The jeneral idea for me iz that peepl doing real work shoud pay the lowest tax rates. Currently the oppozit iz true.
m

No, Income Tax is only one part of the taxes itemized AFTER the false "earnings" are declared, the "wage" that emoloyees are deluded into thinking are what they cost the emoloyer.
The last time I glimpsed the "actual cost" table, the cost to the company was $35/hr for an employee at the $25/hr pay rate, and $52.5/hr at the $37.5/hr overtime rate. That employee likely got $15/hr in straight time take-home pay, or maybe $17.5/hr with finagling. So of the amount the company paid to have that employee work for an hour, the employee took home 43% - 50% of it - but they were deluded into thinking it was less because of the Federally mandated masquerade of Wage Rate being used on the paystub. The overtime rate got them another $6.67/hr in take-home in 2017, so $21.70hr of the $52.5/hr cost would be 41% take home pay for each OT hour.
Yes, all income taxes are the most regressive methods of Taxation.
Consumption Tax is the only real progressive Tax method.
Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?

Quote:Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?

I prezume you mean they can pack up and move to Ireland or Belize or Russia if they think they are being taxed too heavily.

That makes a good case for Siggy'z tarrifs.

Tarrifs dezined to giv an advantaj to American companyz coud keep wealthy freeloaderz from moving their assez and assets overseaz to avoid taxez.

Their accounting team will need to consider how much they want to make in the U.S. market. If they want to try to avoid paying any tax by moving all their operationz and assets overseaz, they will quickly be replased by otherz who dont hav such feelingz uv entitlement.

Effectively, yes. Local and Statewide politicians are more responsive to voters, so the taxable items could be designated by regional or state laws. Groceries, housing, education, mass transit, retirement funds, medical costs could be non-taxable. A poor persons regular expenses are dominated by these, so they could be effectively tax-free, except for whatever luxuries THEY CHOOSE TO PAY TAXES ON. The wealthy will spend the greatest percentage on luxuries. The middle class could choose to pay taxes by spending on restaurants instead of groceries, etc. The wealthy who don't work would still need to buy stuff, most likely luxury items. How much could they possibly spend on groceries, medical, education, etc AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR CASH FLOW, OR SPENDING BUDGET? The wealthy pay a far higher percentage of Tax than the poor this way, the most progressive Taxation method.
Regarding housing, a threshold could be made for taxable rates, which could effectively help with "rent price control" rates.
And the IRS would be defunct. How many BILLIONS of the Federal Budget saved right there, every year.

Quote:

Quote:Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?

I prezume you mean they can pack up and move to Ireland or Belize or Russia if they think they are being taxed too heavily.

Why should they move? They won't be paying any income tax at all. Why would you think they need to work at all for 4 years? No work, no "earnings", no tax.
These are the people who should pay the most taxes, but Income Tax won't touch them. Consumption Tax would.
Would you rather generate your Revenue via the Yacht purchase of the 1%, or forcing the bottom 50% to starve their kids?

Quote:That makes a good case for Siggy'z tarrifs.

Their accounting team will need to consider how much they want to make in the U.S. market.

And maybe all of their employees won't need to have jobs for 4 years, either. Those newly unemployed could find a poor person to ask for a job.

Well yeah, I said there were a lot of things we hadn't even touched on yet. Warren Buffet himself said that he paid less income tax than his secretary did.

I'd wonder how you'd go about changing that though? As much as I'm not a fan of the DOW and investing in general, it's ingrained in the structure of our society now. If you just raised capital gains taxes to 40%, nobody would invest anything and the whole damn country would probably crash and burn overnight when everybody rushed to sell off before the taxes would hit them.

I do like JSF's Consumption Tax idea. A lot, actually. If all the right things were able to be purchased tax free and there was a higher rate for other things considered luxuries, that might work. (I would also add things like electricity, heat, water/trash and even internet to that.... but not Cable/Dish TV or cell phones).

As another example, in Indiana, one of the reasons Property Tax is so low compared to other neighboring states is because of the "Personal Property Tax/Excise Tax".

Quote:Personal property taxes are levied against equipment used in the production of income or held as an investment; billboards; foundations for the equipment; and all other tangible property other than real property. Computer application software is considered an intangible asset and is not assessable.

Licensed motor vehicles, trailers, motorized boats, most airplanes, campers, recreational vehicles and other registered vehicles that are subject to excise tax collected at the time of licensure by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles are not subject to personal property tax.

A huge part of this is the taxes on vehicles. My piece of shit car would cost $112 per year to license in Illinois... The same as somebody with a shiny new Bentley would pay, but in Indiana it's only $32. At the same time, somebody who buys a new $50,000 ride will be paying just under $600 to license it their first year, and that amount drops lower for the first 10 years of the car's life.

This is actually the "Perfect Tax" in my eyes. Not only does the large amount of vehicles on the road in the state heavily subsidize property taxes, but if you don't mind riding around in a 10+ year old car like me than you pay almost nothing for that as well. It's only the people who choose to have a brand new car that have to pay it (whether or not they even own a home or they rent).

Wow... I like our vehicle excise tax even more. I think they must have changed it somewhat recently because I am almost 100% positive it used to cap out at $582 for the first year on a new car. Here's the newest tables though:

The highest is "Class 17", which is $200,000 or over. Somebody would pay $2,375 the first year they owned it just to license it. At 10 years old it would be $123.

There must be some other fees associated with it as well. My car would have only been in Class 6 or 7 when it was new, meaning my tax should only be $12 per year now. I'll have to check it out in April when I have to pay it again and see what the fees are. I can't be bothered to find out what that $20 goes to right now.

Quote:Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?

It seemz to me all super rich peepl reseev their income from their own corporationz and most hi earnerz (like selebrityz, newz ankorz, ball playerz) get their pay az employeez.

The billionaire'z corporationz will be paying 20, 30 or 50% depending on their catagory and the amount they take az salary or wutever will be mostly at 50%.

I havent gotten to thingz like capital gainz, inheritance, etc, but I'm thinking thingz like that shoud be covered by the financial biz tax catagory.

I'v updated the employee tax section and made a few other chanjez.

Corporate Tax only applies if they make a profit, right? If the billionaire's company is making too much, they merely need to buy some new equipment to show they spent more than received for the year, creating a Corporate Loss.
Capital Gains only applies if they sell an investment instrument, right? Floating value of Instruments they bought years ago would not count.
Why would the 4th wealthiest person in America go to work during the 4 years of your adminstration? Do you consider golfing to be "work" even though it is Tax deductible as business expenses? Is yachting "work"? Is vacationing in The Med "work"?
So, no business income, no income as employee, no Capital Gains, no tax on any gains or income. But they can spend gazillions during that 4 years without contributing to your Federal Revenue. Only States will get funding, through sales taxes in places like Florida, which billionaires are sure to visit.
Because you don't have a Consumption Tax, because you only want to confiscate from the hardest working, the poorest, those with the least to contribute to your Revenues.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well yeah, I said there were a lot of things we hadn't even touched on yet. Warren Buffet himself said that he paid less income tax than his secretary did.

Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.

Quote:I'd wonder how you'd go about changing that though? As much as I'm not a fan of the DOW and investing in general, it's ingrained in the structure of our society now. If you just raised capital gains taxes to 40%, nobody would invest anything and the whole damn country would probably crash and burn overnight when everybody rushed to sell off before the taxes would hit them.

Eliminate Income Tax, which the truly wealthy will never pay, but their employees will. Switch to Consumption Tax, and I'm about certain Buffet couldn't pay less of than his secretary, unless she is a spendaholic. I've heard he lives modestly, but he still must spend more than she does, unless his expenses are covered under business expenses, where Consumption Tax would still capture the transaction, no muss no fuss.

Quote:I do like JSF's Consumption Tax idea. A lot, actually. If all the right things were able to be purchased tax free and there was a higher rate for other things considered luxuries, that might work. (I would also add things like electricity, heat, water/trash and even internet to that.... but not Cable/Dish TV or cell phones).

Yes, essential utilities was another category I forgot to mention. A basic internet, basement level, could be considered essential and tax-free, but the most extravagant and high-tier internet would be a luxury for individuals.
Did you know that some States actually Tax groceries? But, like I said, the Federal Consumption Tax could just conform to the local or Statewide Tax laws (except Income Taxes). The reporting and collection mechanisms are already in place, the Fed would just piggyback. If one State's voters decide that groceries should no longer be taxed, like the neighboring States, that can be legislated at the local or Statewide level - much more responsive to the serious voter than Congress will ever be. Even, forbid, more "democratic" for most. It could be possible to have or develop 3 tiers of Consumption Tax Rates: Tax Free, Standard Consumption Tax, Luxury Tax Rate. Could apply to housing, education, and debatably "essential" services. Some examples of detailed Consumption Tax plans, although NOT all the same, have been proposed by Presidential candidates, Herman Cain may have had one.
All golf and tennis would be taxable. All yachts. All Ferraris. All airplanes, but business related would not be Luxury. None of that stuff is "essential to life, Liberty, freedom"

Quote:As another example, in Indiana, one of the reasons Property Tax is so low compared to other neighboring states is because of the "Personal Property Tax/Excise Tax".

Quote:Personal property taxes are levied against equipment used in the production of income or held as an investment; billboards; foundations for the equipment; and all other tangible property other than real property. Computer application software is considered an intangible asset and is not assessable.

Licensed motor vehicles, trailers, motorized boats, most airplanes, campers, recreational vehicles and other registered vehicles that are subject to excise tax collected at the time of licensure by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles are not subject to personal property tax.

A huge part of this is the taxes on vehicles. My piece of shit car would cost $112 per year to license in Illinois... The same as somebody with a shiny new Bentley would pay, but in Indiana it's only $32. At the same time, somebody who buys a new $50,000 ride will be paying just under $600 to license it their first year, and that amount drops lower for the first 10 years of the car's life.

This is actually the "Perfect Tax" in my eyes. Not only does the large amount of vehicles on the road in the state heavily subsidize property taxes, but if you don't mind riding around in a 10+ year old car like me than you pay almost nothing for that as well. It's only the people who choose to have a brand new car that have to pay it (whether or not they even own a home or they rent).

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Consumption Tax is barely a dent in the spending Budgets of the wealthy, but is critical for everybody surrounding them. When a "new car" is a true status symbol, no reason it shouldn't be taxed more.
This also reminds me of the criminal trades. How many drug dealers pay a dime of Income Tax? But they all live that life to spend money, right? So Consumption Tax would not even register to them, they'd pay it gladly for their status symbols, and Revenue coffers would finally reap their ill-gotten gains.
Criminals would, for once, pay more Tax than hard working Citizens they mingle among.

Also, one example of local laws applying: some States choose to charge Tolls on Federal Interstates. Since the voters of these states have decided this is a desirable incursion of their State's Government, these should also be fully taxed at the maximum rate. If the voters change their minds and the toll booths are dismantled, then there would be no Taxation.

So, consider the size and cash flow of Criminal enterprises nationwide. And any other "undeclared" or "undocumented" or "unrecorded" GDP. Consider the Federal Expense savings of no IRS. The elimination of The Tax Industry: preparers, planners, lawyers,etc. The wealthiest finally paying more in taxes than the hardest workers. The inherent fairness of the whole Consumption Tax. And YOU get to CHOOSE how much Tax YOU PAY, every day, based upon your purchase. And if you dislike the rate of Taxation, you know it is resultant from those spendaholics in Washington. How do you think the Federal Revenue coffers would fill, different from today?

Quote:Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?

I'v updated the employee tax section and made a few other chanjez.

Your new rate of 0% goes up to $10,000 of annual pay. I was under the impression that the poverty level was something near $20,000. Is there some reason you want to Tax incomes below $20K? Hard to imagine that is a major contribution to Revenue coffers, or are you just trying to punish the poorest, like Obama and the Democrats do?
Your example 2: Walmart pays 31,200. Bowling pays $26,000. EBay earns $5,200. Math in the Real World sums this to $62,400. But you state differently.

Your revised example 1:
You state 13,233. Which the Tax Table shows is the Tax due for a Single Earner with up to $80,400 in 2017.
You indicated the Earner got $70,000. Which, in 2017 the Tax Table shows a Single Earner would have $10,633 Tax due.

So, for those earning around average for Americans, you are replacing $10,633 with $4,000 into Revenue coffers - for each and every worker at average or below income, which must be 60% - 70% of Earners.
And you are replacing Income Tax on $1,000,000 and above with practically nothing. 2 largest portions of the Revenue pie you are reducing by 60% or more. Where are you planning to recoup these lost Revenues? Or are you planning to reduce Federal Expenditures by 60%, when nobody else has been able to?

The jeneral idea for me iz that peepl doing real work shoud pay the lowest tax rates. Currently the oppozit iz true.
m

No, Income Tax is only one part of the taxes itemized AFTER the false "earnings" are declared, the "wage" that emoloyees are deluded into thinking are what they cost the emoloyer.
The last time I glimpsed the "actual cost" table, the cost to the company was $35/hr for an employee at the $25/hr pay rate, and $52.5/hr at the $37.5/hr overtime rate. That employee likely got $15/hr in straight time take-home pay, or maybe $17.5/hr with finagling. So of the amount the company paid to have that employee work for an hour, the employee took home 43% - 50% of it - but they were deluded into thinking it was less because of the Federally mandated masquerade of Wage Rate being used on the paystub. The overtime rate got them another $6.67/hr in take-home in 2017, so $21.70hr of the $52.5/hr cost would be 41% take home pay for each OT hour. Or 46% with finagling.
Your solution is not to unmask how much of the employer's cost is confiscated before the employee gets a dime, but to hide even more of it behind the curtain of the Fake Wage Rate hypocrisy. Pretending that the employee gets more like 100% of what the employer pays, instead of 40%. I don't envision your smoke and mirrors ploy to have any real benefit, but it will provide real problems.
Yes, all income taxes are the most regressive methods of Taxation.
Consumption Tax is the only real progressive Tax method.
Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.